1. Film: Erin Brockovich Director: Steven Soderbergh Release Year: 2000
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses on the pollution of ground water by the Pacific Gas and Electric company (PGE) with the toxic element, hexavalent chromium. The main character, Erin Brockovich, uncovers this truth by doing further research on a suspicious case that ended up on her desk for filing. This case revealed that PGE offered to buy a house from a family while subsequently paying for a doctor's visit for each family member, including the two extremely sick parents. Upon further investigation by Brockovich, it was determined that PGE used hexavalent chromium as an anti-corrosive agent for their machinery, which had been dumped into the unlined surrounding ponds, and allowed to seep into the local water system. It was found that there were about 600 people affected in the communities surrounding the power plant, with symptoms varying from excessive nose bleeds and chronic headaches to cancer and organ failure. Documents proved that the company was well aware of the problem, calling for clean up and advising their employees to stay quiet about the toxic element. The company even lied about the poisoning even before the investigation, claiming that their water contained trivalent chromium, which is actually beneficial to human health. Their goal was to try to appease these affected families by offering to buy their real estate and pay doctors to lie about the cause of their health problems in order exceed the statute of limitations of one year. Erin and Ed Masry however were able to compile all of this evidence and document the declarations of all of the affected plaintiffs, resulting in a successful outcome in court against PGE and “the settlement award was the largest in a direct action lawsuit in US history”. After the suit was settled, PGE claimed that they no longer used hexavalent chromium in their plants and that all of the surrounding ponds were lined appropriately.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal? The argument was sufficiently sustained throughout the film by ample supporting evidence, both legal and scientific. Legally speaking, the film explained that the company was only trying to temporarily appease the parties involved was to avoid the statute of limitations. After one year PGE would have been able to openly admit their mistake without any consequences. Scientifically, it was made clear that the water poisoning was clearly linked to the development of diseases in the plaintiffs by declaring that the legal limit of hexachromium is 0.05 parts per million (ppm) while tests revealed that the water consumed by the first family documented in the case was at 0.58 ppm, or 11.6 times the legal limit. The variety of diseases and terrible conditions were explicitly mentioned, and a medical report of extremely low immune system cell counts was shown. In terms of the hexachromium it was explained that the company used it as a rust inhibitor, or an anti-corrosive agent. Besides the fact that it shouldn't have been used in the first place, we learn that the ponds in which the excess water from the machines are dumped should have also been lined for additional protection of the environment. The film also had incredible emotional appeal, not only from the persistent, selfless acts of Erin Brockovich, but from the accounts revealed by the affects individuals, those trying to recover from surgeries, those with cancer, and those struggling to pay their medical bills.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological? The film highlights legal and economic problems, but more importantly environmental problems that are directly linked to human health issues.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why? The part of the film that was most persuasive and compelling was when the law firm, although small, independent, and in debt decided to take on this case for the greater good. Although there was so much at risk, including great monetary expenses, the firm was convinced that PGE needed to be confronted and to pay for what they did to these people. There was truly a moment of doubt that they would be able to take on the case, but it was inspiring and relieving when they did.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why? The part of the film I was not particularly convinced by was when Erin was told by the former employee of PGE that he saved documents he was told to destroy which stated the mandatory clean up of the plant and that the employees should keep quiet about the matter. These were exactly the documents the firm needed to solidify their case, and it seemed too easy that they would happen to end up in her hands this way. Although the film was based on a true story, this part of the film made me question whether this was actually true.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why? This film may best address an audience ranging from high school students and older. Because the film presents many legal and scientific facts, younger audiences may have a hard time understanding and appreciating the theme of this film.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value? The film could have included more scientific evidence to explain how exactly the hexachromium causes these conditions and diseases in order to enhance its environmental educational value. Many cancers are caused by environmental factors such as pollution, which is illustrated in this film. Additional insight on the mechanism of these environmental agents in the role of cancer production may increase proactive measures to stop pollution on a larger scale with power plants, but also on a small scale such building a “green” home.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective. The type of action and points of intervention suggested by the film was clearly legal. It was certain that although many families were suffering, they would not individually be able to make their case against such a large corporation. It was imperative that they should come together and take legal action, however this probably would not have been possible without the actions of the brave and inspiring Erin Brockovich. The company ended up granting 333 million dollars which was divided up to the plaintiffs depending on the severity of their debt from medical bills and damages.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references. I was compelled to seek out additional information regarding the current status of the Pacific Gas and Electric company to see if they were able to successfully regain business and power after such a horrible incident. Recently, PGE was recognized for their development of clean-fueled utility cars and trucks, known as the leading utility fleet in 2010 by Automotive Fleet magazine. The company also claims they are on a path to a smarter energy future by “helping customers understand and manage their energy use to save money and resources”, known as their SmartMeter program.1 However, in 2010 PGE was also determined to be at fault for the natural gas transmission pipeline rupture and fire in Sun Bruno, California.2 It seems like despite their effort to protect the environment, they have the tendency to destroy it instead.
Film Annotation # 1
1. Film: Erin Brockovich
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Release Year: 2000
2. What is the central argument or narrative of the film?
This film focuses on the pollution of ground water by the Pacific Gas and Electric company (PGE) with the toxic element, hexavalent chromium. The main character, Erin Brockovich, uncovers this truth by doing further research on a suspicious case that ended up on her desk for filing. This case revealed that PGE offered to buy a house from a family while subsequently paying for a doctor's visit for each family member, including the two extremely sick parents. Upon further investigation by Brockovich, it was determined that PGE used hexavalent chromium as an anti-corrosive agent for their machinery, which had been dumped into the unlined surrounding ponds, and allowed to seep into the local water system. It was found that there were about 600 people affected in the communities surrounding the power plant, with symptoms varying from excessive nose bleeds and chronic headaches to cancer and organ failure. Documents proved that the company was well aware of the problem, calling for clean up and advising their employees to stay quiet about the toxic element. The company even lied about the poisoning even before the investigation, claiming that their water contained trivalent chromium, which is actually beneficial to human health. Their goal was to try to appease these affected families by offering to buy their real estate and pay doctors to lie about the cause of their health problems in order exceed the statute of limitations of one year. Erin and Ed Masry however were able to compile all of this evidence and document the declarations of all of the affected plaintiffs, resulting in a successful outcome in court against PGE and “the settlement award was the largest in a direct action lawsuit in US history”. After the suit was settled, PGE claimed that they no longer used hexavalent chromium in their plants and that all of the surrounding ponds were lined appropriately.
3. How is the argument or narrative made and sustained? How much scientific information is provided, for example? Does the film have emotional appeal?
The argument was sufficiently sustained throughout the film by ample supporting evidence, both legal and scientific. Legally speaking, the film explained that the company was only trying to temporarily appease the parties involved was to avoid the statute of limitations. After one year PGE would have been able to openly admit their mistake without any consequences. Scientifically, it was made clear that the water poisoning was clearly linked to the development of diseases in the plaintiffs by declaring that the legal limit of hexachromium is 0.05 parts per million (ppm) while tests revealed that the water consumed by the first family documented in the case was at 0.58 ppm, or 11.6 times the legal limit. The variety of diseases and terrible conditions were explicitly mentioned, and a medical report of extremely low immune system cell counts was shown. In terms of the hexachromium it was explained that the company used it as a rust inhibitor, or an anti-corrosive agent. Besides the fact that it shouldn't have been used in the first place, we learn that the ponds in which the excess water from the machines are dumped should have also been lined for additional protection of the environment. The film also had incredible emotional appeal, not only from the persistent, selfless acts of Erin Brockovich, but from the accounts revealed by the affects individuals, those trying to recover from surgeries, those with cancer, and those struggling to pay their medical bills.
4. What sustainability problems does the film draw out? Political? Legal? Economic? Technological? Media and Informational? Organizational? Educational? Behavioral? Cultural? Ecological?
The film highlights legal and economic problems, but more importantly environmental problems that are directly linked to human health issues.
5. What parts of the film did you find most persuasive and compelling? Why?
The part of the film that was most persuasive and compelling was when the law firm, although small, independent, and in debt decided to take on this case for the greater good. Although there was so much at risk, including great monetary expenses, the firm was convinced that PGE needed to be confronted and to pay for what they did to these people. There was truly a moment of doubt that they would be able to take on the case, but it was inspiring and relieving when they did.
6. What parts of the film were you not compelled or convinced by? Why?
The part of the film I was not particularly convinced by was when Erin was told by the former employee of PGE that he saved documents he was told to destroy which stated the mandatory clean up of the plant and that the employees should keep quiet about the matter. These were exactly the documents the firm needed to solidify their case, and it seemed too easy that they would happen to end up in her hands this way. Although the film was based on a true story, this part of the film made me question whether this was actually true.
7. What audiences does the film best address? Why?
This film may best address an audience ranging from high school students and older. Because the film presents many legal and scientific facts, younger audiences may have a hard time understanding and appreciating the theme of this film.
8. What could have been added to this film to enhance its environmental educational value?
The film could have included more scientific evidence to explain how exactly the hexachromium causes these conditions and diseases in order to enhance its environmental educational value. Many cancers are caused by environmental factors such as pollution, which is illustrated in this film. Additional insight on the mechanism of these environmental agents in the role of cancer production may increase proactive measures to stop pollution on a larger scale with power plants, but also on a small scale such building a “green” home.
9. What kinds of action and points of intervention are suggested by the film? If the film itself does not suggest corrective action, describe actions that you can imagine being effective.
The type of action and points of intervention suggested by the film was clearly legal. It was certain that although many families were suffering, they would not individually be able to make their case against such a large corporation. It was imperative that they should come together and take legal action, however this probably would not have been possible without the actions of the brave and inspiring Erin Brockovich. The company ended up granting 333 million dollars which was divided up to the plaintiffs depending on the severity of their debt from medical bills and damages.
10. What additional information has this film compelled you to seek out? (Provide at least two supporting references.
I was compelled to seek out additional information regarding the current status of the Pacific Gas and Electric company to see if they were able to successfully regain business and power after such a horrible incident. Recently, PGE was recognized for their development of clean-fueled utility cars and trucks, known as the leading utility fleet in 2010 by Automotive Fleet magazine. The company also claims they are on a path to a smarter energy future by “helping customers understand and manage their energy use to save money and resources”, known as their SmartMeter program.1 However, in 2010 PGE was also determined to be at fault for the natural gas transmission pipeline rupture and fire in Sun Bruno, California.2 It seems like despite their effort to protect the environment, they have the tendency to destroy it instead.
1 http://www.pge.com/about/company/profile/history/index.shtml
2 http://www.ntsb.gov/news/events/2011/san_bruno_ca/index.html